The Research Question and Focus of the Presentation

The Overall Research Question: How does exploring planning knowledges within the Metropolitan Municipality of eThekwini (Durban, South Africa), reveal the roles, uses and construction of land use planning knowledge, as a focal point for theorizing and transforming practice, within the context of multiple knowledge actors and knowledges? How practical knowledge, lived experiences, and the multiplicity of stakeholders can expand, confront and change planning knowledge used in practice, within the context of an African City

Presenter : ST Moonsammy

Research Design, Methodology

Institutional Ethnography

Study of a practice a ‘sub-culture’, focus on the institution and its members

Participant observation, daily work environment , importance of work knowledge and social relations

Informant Interviews and Focus Groups

56 qualitative interviews

Focus Groups

Nonprobability Sampling: Resident Interviews (168)

Qualitative questionnaire to voice community opinions and experiences (English and isiZulu)

4 development activists stories

Participants drawn from Six Sizakala Centres

Review of Documentation

IDPs, SDFs, TPS, Legislation , Minutes , SOPs

Municipal Planning Functions Strategic Spatial Planning IDP-

SDFS, Local Area Plans) Regulatory/Land Use Management (TPS) Sector Inclusions

Environmental Plans Infrastructure Requirements

Parking Standards Architectural Perspectives

Planning theory is plural and not context independent

Practice is complex – multiple ideas considered as a guide to challenge and make sense of planning practice revealed

Communicative and Deliberative Planning Theory

Institutionalism as an Analytical lens

Culturization of Planning

Phronesis – practical, common knowledge about living, sharing, making and use space

Rationality and Power, Rationality and Politics, Politics and Professionals (no theory for power)

Planning ‘Theory’ / Thoughts Selected for the Research

Theory and Practice in the Context of African Urbanism : Problematization; Travels and Assimilation of Planning; Gray Spaces

What Guides and Directs Planning Practice on a Daily Basis : Planning Legislation, Bureaucratic Ethics, Institutional culture, planning culture

Planning’s epistemology, coding and assumptions

Shift to society and not plans;

Flexible society requires flexible planning knowledge;

Shift to urban codes, simple legislation, tacit knowledge and multiple knowledge actors and points of coordination

Works with : spontaneity, reciprocity, innovation , more deliberation & self – regulation

Key ideas used

Land use planning knowledges directs planning (SDFs - UDL, TPS, d’moss, parking standards – some sectors matter)

The power of planning knowledge - it compels appeal authorities to ensure compliance first before reason

The knowledge in use and re (used) comes from the past – uncritically used

The role and (in) credibility of planning consultants

Political knowledge matters more than any other knowledge, the political in planning is everywhere

Emerging Insights from the Empirical Data The All Importance of Planning Knowledges Revealed

Social Relations and Unintended Consequences uncovered in the (Re) development of Land Use Planning Knowledge for Practice

Territorial Jealousy, Personalities and Alliances - Social Production of Land Use Planning Knowledge for Practice

The Generation of Land Use Planning Knowledge/s - Views from the Inside There is no real discussion about a philosophy in what we trying to do –

philosophy of assimilation !

There is nothing wrong with the land use planning knowledge /s we created and in use

We have the qualification, experience and legal mandate to construct this knowledge - do you recognize job reservation

Democracy in practice, participation at its minimum, symptoms of a weak and fragmented institution

The majority of councillors lack the time, capacity and fear the technical in planning

The role/s of research, teaching and planning organizations – absent

Missed Opportunities in the (Re) Development of Land Use Planning Knowledge/s

Dominant Storylines Emerge

It’s a time to organize communities across geography, class and race

Constitutionally compliant but constitutionally unprogressive

A fight for basics to engage - gate keeping, political and professional (public & private)

Places are changing, acknowledge and work with this

Profession out of touch with realities and lacks innovation

Different lived experiences but converging on new practices for municipal planning

‘neighbourly fit’, dealing with ‘public bads’ as collectively prioritized, public and private space as one, the social, urban management, solutions, responsibilities, less hardship, grey is acceptable

Emerging Insights from the Empirical Data Multiple Stakeholder Experiences and Expectations

Flexibility and tolerances: high levels of tolerances for mixed uses

Integration or diversity (race, cultural, religion and age ) less of an issue

Low levels of awareness of TPS (less than 30%)

Levels of control (council moderate control) and moderate role/s for neighbours in planning matters

Addressing conflicts, traditional methods used in planning inadequate and ineffective

meetings, local councilors, community groups, mediation and conflict resolution

Notions of compliance and illegality: overwhelming support for ‘compliance’

Prioritized and limited ‘public bads’

Social problems and pollution

Gender

Male (60.1%)

Female (39.9%)

Age

18 - 24 (8.3%)

35 – 54 years 62.5%)

>65 years (1.8%)

Historical racial categorization

African (54.8%)

Indians (34.5%)

Whites (8.3%)

Coloured (1.8%)

Income

R1-1000 (13.1%)

R1001- 5 000 (48.8%)

R5 001-10 000 (7.1% )

R10 001- 15 000(7.7%)

undisclosed (12.5%)

Education Tertiary (26.8%)

Secondary (57.7%)

Primary(11.3%)

No schooling (3.6%)

No response (0.6%)

Resident Interviews : socio-demographic

Employment Percent

Formal sector 29.2

Unemployed 23.8

Self-employed 23.2

Informal sector 12.5

Pensioner 7.7

Student 3.6

Location (approx. 87%) Percent

KwaMashu; Ntuzuma; Inanda 19.0

Phoenix 17.3

Umlazi 16.1

Chatsworth 12.5

Hammasdale; Welbedacht 7.7

Umhlanga; Umhloti 7.1

Pinetown; New Germany;

Westville; Queensburgh 7.1

Managing Conflicts : Mechanisms /Options Percent

Mediation and Conflict Resolution

Local councillor and ward committee (14.9%)

46.6

Community Meetings 32.1

Court and Enforcement Proceedings 22.6

Communication notices 5.4

Don’t know 4.2

13

`Negative Land Use for Place Making ` Percent

Socially problematic facilities e.g. - clubs, casinos, gambling premises, music venues, taverns

& shebeens 60.6

Industry generating pollution- e.g. factories, truck yards, workshops 17.8

Public uses that create nuisances, health and safety concerns such as military uses, sewerage

plants, unmanaged parks, unmanaged environmental areas, public transport facilities 4.2

Non-residential uses 3.6

Religious uses 3.0

Uses that generate noise 1.8

Shops and business uses 1.8

Livestock 1.8

Informal settlements 1.8

Informal trading and hawking &unregistered Businesses 1.2

No response 1.2

Traffic generating uses, uses that cannot cater for parking on site .6

Poorly designed areas not in use .6

14

A Local Version of Communicative Planning Theory (CPT) in the (Re) Development of Land Use Planning Knowledge Emerges

Nuances many critics of CPT including Lauria and Wagner‘s (2006) study

Emerging Principles for Land Use Planning Knowledge/s

Property : local knowledge expands on the functional, financial and social value and use of property;

Simple and generic rules for property; society is flexible and development is flexible; planning should be flexible

Local areas and the city remain close to community interests and passion

Civil society : Social capital may be underdeveloped, unorganized, but it is always present and wanting to be engaged;

Planning should capacitate and enable civil society engagement;

Conflicts: are prevalent and consensus requires work - discussion, debate, negotiation and mediation;

Planning knowledges : created thorough Discussion and Debate as “Mini Constitutions”

Multiple Role/s for Planners: break down the technical, capacitate, expand and share power of knowledge development and planning practice, be advocates, also be experts

Contributions to the Planning Thoughts and Theory

Emerging Conceptual Ideas for the (Re) Development of Land Use

Planning Knowledge for Practice

Knowledge and space is socially constructed with or without planning and planners

Theorists /ideas and empirical findings (simple urban codes, flexible society and planning, simple legislation), expanding/multiple points of coordination, moving away from control towards reciprocity, multiple knowledges and actors and involvement in planning

Four Interdependent pillars

Social and society informing knowledge and practice ( capable of being caring and flexible); mutual benefits, not everything needs to be controlled, practical, collaboration for coordination

Simple and Basic Code

Simple Legislation

Matured profession and Institutions (expands concept of power, knowledge, society, policy making )

Fig 10.4 Theoretical Land Use Planning Framework Source: Author, influenced by Halleux et al. 2012, p. 890.

Social construction of Planning Outcomes

Social Knowledge Social Experiences Social Evaluation and Mitigation

Basic Planning Code – ‘Super

Code’ Prioritize public

bads Protect private

and public property

boundaries Promote

neighbourliness Promote

opportunity Applicable across land markets and

types of tenure

Simple Planning Legislation -Context

Specific

Compliance is affordable

Compliance is achievable

Benefits outweigh costs

Diversification promoted

Mediation as part of compliance

Professional and Institutional

Approach Politically engaged

and community engaged policy development Adaptive and

flexible planning systems

Participatory and collaborative approach to

planning Reflective and research based

planning practice

Thank You!